THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO ZAPATERO AND JOSE ZAPATERO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Zapatero versus Zapatero

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Alfredo Zapatero and Jose Zapatero, for the killing of Demetrio Botanes. The trial court convicted both of murder. The brothers appealed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the whole record. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision several doctrines a reviewee must command: the credibility of eyewitness identification, the competency of a child witness, the nature of alibi, the proof required for conspiracy, the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, and the strict standard for evident premeditation. It also reminds us that the use of a firearm is not an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

A complaint for murder was filed against the Zapatero brothers in the Court of First Instance of Abra. After trial, that court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding both guilty of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay the heirs of Demetrio Botanes an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to be divided among them, and to pay the costs. The brothers appealed from that decision. The appeal brought the case to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the findings of the trial court and rendered its own judgment.

Facts

On the morning of March 17, 1968, Demetrio Botanes, his wife Salvacion, and their children rode to a resort in Penarrubia, Abra, to attend a birthday party. At the poblacion, Salvacion saw the Zapatero brothers, whom she knew well because they had been her neighbors. The family spent the day at the resort and, at about four o'clock in the afternoon, began to leave. Demetrio and Salvacion waited near their car while their companions gathered firewood.

While Demetrio was playing with his infant child, a shot was suddenly fired from behind. It struck him. Salvacion looked toward the direction of the shot and, at a distance of about seven or eight meters, saw Jose Zapatero holding the gun, with his brother Alfredo at his side. The two fled. Salvacion ran after them but soon returned to her husband, who died shortly thereafter. She reported the matter to the Constabulary. An autopsy showed a penetrating wound at the back of the neck and an exit wound over the left eye, and the doctor concluded that a thirty caliber gun was used and that the assailant was behind the victim.

The motive was revenge. Demetrio Botanes had earlier implicated the brothers in an attempt on his life, and he was himself charged with the killing of the brothers' father, Felix Zapatero. The brothers set up alibi, claiming they were in Cagayan from February to May of 1968. The trial court, after an ocular inspection, found that they went to Cagayan only after the killing, to hide and prepare their defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the wife and son of the victim saw the appellants at the scene of the crime.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that evident premeditation attended the killing.
• Whether or not Alfredo Zapatero, who was not the gunwielder, is liable as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on who may be witnesses, provides:

All persons who, having organs of sense, can perceive, and perceiving, make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

This governs the testimony of the victim's young son, who witnessed the shooting.

Section 19 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on the disqualification of children, provides:

Children who appear to the court to be of such tender age and inferior capacity as to be incapable of receiving correct impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly cannot be witnesses.

This is the test applied to determine whether the child witness was competent to testify.

Article 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised Penal Code, on treachery, provides:

The employment of means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This is the qualifying circumstance that raised the killing to murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder, and Article 64, paragraph 1, governs the imposition of the penalty according to the periods. These provisions fix the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the medium period.

Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, on the civil liability of principals, provides the basis for holding the appellants solidarily liable for the indemnity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the identification. The main question was credibility, and the Court found the testimony of Mrs. Botanes and her son clear and consistent. The widow had known the appellants for years as neighbors, and she identified Jose as the gunwielder and Alfredo as his companion. The Court held that the alleged discrepancy between her sketch and the doctor's conjecture was more fancied than real, since the doctor merely surmised the relative positions while she testified to what she actually saw. The Court also held that the testimony of the young son was admissible, since the prosecution is not precluded from calling a witness not listed in the information, and his tender age did not disqualify him. The Court rejected the alibi, noting that it is a defense easy to fabricate, and it found that the appellants fled to Cagayan after the crime.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for murder. Treachery was correctly appreciated, because Jose placed himself in a forested area and fired at the unsuspecting victim from a distance, employing a mode of execution that insured the killing without risk of defense. The Court held that use of a firearm is not aggravating, since it is not among the circumstances enumerated in Article 14, and that an uninhabited place was not proven.

On the third issue, the Court held that evident premeditation was not established. It ruled that premeditation cannot be appreciated in every killing that is the product of a scheme, and it required proof that the accused had definitely resolved to commit the offense and had coolly reflected on the means and consequences. The statement of the victim about an earlier attempt was hearsay and could not be regarded as a notorious manifestation of a preconceived plan.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Alfredo was a co-conspirator and therefore a co-principal. Conspiracy may be implied from their common desire to avenge their father's death, the fact that they were side by side when Jose fired, and the circumstance that they fled together. Alfredo was not an apathetic spectator but had community of design with his brother.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of an eyewitness identification is a question of fact that the trial court is best situated to resolve, especially where the witness knew the accused and the identification is corroborated by an ocular inspection. Second, a child of tender age may be a competent witness where the court finds that the child can perceive and relate the truth, applying Sections 18 and 19 of Rule 130. Third, alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification. Fourth, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime, and a co-conspirator is liable as a co-principal even if he did not fire the fatal shot. Fifth, treachery qualifies a killing to murder where the mode of execution insured its consummation without risk to the offender, as defined in Article 14, paragraph 16. Sixth, evident premeditation requires clear proof of a definite resolution, cool reflection, and an appreciable lapse of time, and it cannot be presumed from motive alone. Seventh, use of a firearm is not an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that the appellants are held solidarily liable for the indemnity, and ordered them to pay the costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that conspiracy may be implied from common design and concerted action, making every conspirator a co-principal, while evident premeditation demands proof of a definite resolution and cool reflection, not mere motive. Examiners like to use this case on the competency of child witnesses, the weakness of alibi against positive identification, and the distinction between treachery as a qualifying circumstance and evident premeditation as an aggravating one.